Category Archives: 2012 Primary

Stroke of the Pen: Most Health Plans Required to Give Birth Control Without Co-pay

Why should government have this kind of power? Who would want to do business here with such a government cloud over their head?

The Hill:

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control without charging co-pays or deductibles starting Aug. 1, the Obama administration announced Friday.

The final regulation retains the approach federal health officials proposed last summer, despite the deluge of complaints from religious groups and congressional Republicans that has poured in since then. Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

Congressional Republicans slammed the decision as an assault on religious freedom.

“This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,” said the Republican Policy Committee. “Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base.”

Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich!

Chuck Norris:

As Gov. Perry said during his “strategic retreat” (citing Gen. Sam Houston) from the GOP presidential race, “This mission is greater than any one man.”

I’m tired of watching our country being torn to shreds by those who think the answer is more government debt and control. I’m tired of being in bondage to a tax system that robs U.S. citizens like the king of England did before the Revolution. I’m tired of watching our sovereignty being sold by foreign loans and loose borders. And I will not sit back and merely watch this decay and degradation of the U.S. and then hand it over to my children and grandchildren to deal with.

That is why Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to her heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.

Read on HERE!

Chief of Criminal Division pleads the 5th regarding Operation Fast and Furious…

Fox News:

The chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona is refusing to testify before Congress regarding Operation Fast and Furious, the federal gun-running scandal that sent U.S. weapons to Mexico.

Patrick J. Cunningham informed the House Oversight Committee late Thursday through his attorney that he will use the Fifth Amendment protection.

Cunningham was ordered Wednesday to appear before Chairman Darrell Issa and the House Oversight Committee regarding his role in the operation that sent more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa Cartel. Guns from the failed operation were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry.

The letter from Cunningham’s Washington DC attorney stunned congressional staff. Last week, Cunningham, the second highest ranking U.S. Attorney in Arizona, was scheduled to appear before Issa‘s committee voluntarily. Then, he declined and Issa issued a subpoena.

Cunningham is represented by Tobin Romero of Williams and Connolly who is a specialist in white collar crime. In the letter, he suggests witnesses from the Department of Justice in Washington, who have spoken in support of Attorney General Eric Holder, are wrong or lying.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/federal-official-in-arizona-to-plead-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-on-furious/

FBI: Newt’s Ex Tried To Sell Influence at His Expense

[Editor’s Note – First of all the fact that I have to report this is repulsive. Being personally fond of the Gingrich family, this kind of crap is the last thing I want to have on Political Arena, but we must be real; this is about the presidency and is not a game. Newt’s ex-wife Marianne is clearly disturbed and her illness cannot be allowed to get in the way of the needs of the country. ]

ABC and Esquire Magazine didn’t tell you this…….

Via our friend Political Arena contributor Warren Roche:

According to FBI records, back in 1995 – 96, Marianne Gingrich had a secret meeting in Paris where she attempted to make $10 MILLION by selling her influence on her then husband to the highest bidder in order to help lift the Iraq arms embargo and for backing the Florida bullet train an behalf of interested parties willing to pay, specifically, HER!!!

Following are two excerpts from the FBI document linked below through the Washington Post:

(Mrs. Gingrich) “stated that her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience. She told the source that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his “skeletons.” Source stated that after requesting (Mrs.) Gingrich’s assistance in the above matter, she told him that her organization needed money. She also told source “It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy.”

“Bennett stated that Gingrich wanted for herself up front, in addition to the $550,000.00 that Bennett mentioned earlier, bringing the total up front payment to 1 million 50 thousand dollars.”

Here are the documents – LINK. This distraction is now over.

More on “disturbing”… Bernard Goldberg has a must read column on Marianne – LINK.

CNN Makes Debate History. ABC News Refuses To Interview Witnesses Defending Newt Gingrich from Allegations – UPDATED!

Be sure to read our previous post:

Leftist Media Jumping At Newt’s Ex-Wife, Covered Up John Edwards and Juanita Broaddrick While Not Covering Obama’s “Failures”

Complete Newt Debate Highlights

UPDATE – NEWT’S CLOSING STATEMENT:

UPDATE – Sarah Palin:

Leftist Media Jumping At Newt’s Ex-Wife, Covered Up John Edwards and Juanita Broaddrick While Not Covering Obama’s “Failures”

Hey elite media….what happened to “it’s just sex” and “sex doesn’t matter”?

ABC is accusing Newt of having wanted an open marriage…. just like Bill and Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows they have an open marriage so where was the firestorm? Where was it when Hillary ran in 2008? They didn’t even live together for how many years?

Of course this is coming from an elite media who knew all about how John Edwards was cheating on his cancer stricken wife and said nothing until the National Enquirer caught Edwards red-handed.

How many years ago did Newt and Marianne get divorced? If memory serves it is over 12 years. So why is this big news and Bill and Hillary are held up as virtuous by the elite media?

Well besides the fact that what Marianne said is likely not true, my point is the hypocrisy. The elite media and the left will lie or do anything to trash us with one standard, and yet proclaim that the same standard is a virtue if the person has a D by their name.

Paula Jones got some media play because her case went to the Supreme Court and Gennifer Flowers got some play when she posed nude. The elite media tried to cover up Monica Lewinsky but Matt Drudge found out. The Lewinsky affair would have come out anyway as Paula Jones’ lawyers had found out about her through the discovery process.

[Editor’s Note – we would rather make no reference to Miss Lewinsky, but in this case we had to. Good editorial judgment is important and the facts indicate that Miss Lewinsky was the victim of a very lopsided power relationship. She should be allowed to live this down and enjoy her life in peace. We wish her well.] 

There were also reported affairs with actresses Sharon Stone, Barbara Streisand, Gina Gershon. There are also numerous other affairs and sexual assaults, such as Kathleen Willey (who got one interview at CBS) and others that were just not mentioned such as Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick (who got one interview with NBC’s Lisa Myers and that was it).

Where was the media frenzy and the planning to release the interview at a key electoral time?  What happened to “it’s just sex” and “sex doesn’t matter” elite media??

Newt’s Daughters Speak Out!

Editor’s Note – Jackie is an acquaintance of mine. She has a heart of gold and a wonderful mind. Her family does not need what ABC is doing. ABC would never do this to a Democrat. This is very personal bottom of the barrel stuff. 

Related: 

FBI: Newt’s Ex Tried To Sell Influence at His Expense – LINK

CNN Makes Debate History. ABC News Refuses To Interview Witnesses Defending Newt Gingrich from Allegations – LINK

Elite Media Jumping At Newt’s Ex-Wife, Covered Up John Edwards and Juanita Broaddrick While Not Covering Obama’s “Failures” – LINK

ABC News Leadership

From: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers, Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012

The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.

We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.

ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.

Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run – to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.

###

Contact:
R.C. Hammond
Press Secretary
rch@newt.org

UPDATE – Pastor Jim Garlow Endorses Newt

Editorial: About SOPA…..

 

Every couple of years there is a new anti-piracy bill and a new bill to protect “kids from porn” proposed. These bills are deliberately made to be over reaching and over broad.

This is done so certain members can say “see I voted to protect your kids from X” or they can say to wealthy and powerful companies that have intellectual property “See I voted for a law to protect your interests, intellectual property and your money” – In the case of the later it usually happens at times such as now when politicians are fund raising for the elections coming this November.

The bills are so broad and over reaching that they are not intended to become law and on the off chance that they do they are written in such a way that the courts will strike them down, thus setting the stage to use the issue again to shill for votes and fund raising dollars.

This bill was never intended to become law.

Hawkins: Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins

Townhall.com John Hawkins:

If you were trying to come up with the most atrocious candidate imaginable to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama in 2012, you couldn’t do much better than Mitt Romney. He was an unpopular moderate governor who lost 2 out of the 3 major elections he’s run in and whose signature issue Romneycare is an enormous failure. Moreover, he’s so uninspiring that he makes Bob Dole look like Ronald Reagan and that’s before you consider his incessant flip-flopping that makes it impossible to really know where he stands on any issue.

Romney’s candidacy also runs counter to almost every political trend in the book right now. He’s the antithesis of everything the Tea Party stands for — a moderate establishment-endorsed, principle-free Rockefeller Republican. On the other hand, he’s like a bad guy straight out of central casting for the Occupy Wall Street crowd, a conscience-free 1 percenter who makes $10,000 bets and lectures the public about how corporations are people — while hordes of poor and middle class Americans that he fired trail in his wake telling tales of woe about how Romney made their lives into a living hell.

At one time, I thought both Gingrich and Perry were more electable than Romney. I have, however, reassessed and now believe Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and even Huntsman, who just left the race, are ALL more electable than Mitt. It’s also worth noting that all of those candidates, including Huntsman, are more conservative than Romney. It’s mind-boggling to consider the fact that if Romney wins, the conservative base will have chosen the guy behind Romneycare over the man behind the Contract with America, America’s premier social conservative, and the best job-creating governor in America, all of whom would also be more electable.

Here we are in what may be, forgive me for the cliché, the most important election of our lifetimes and the GOP may end up choosing a candidate who’s one part Charlie Crist and one part John Kerry as our nominee.

Read more HERE.

 

Rush Limbaugh Quotes Political Arena Editor On The Air

Gloat Alert! One has to love it when the big guy quotes you and/or mentions your work.

This very writer has written multiple pieces about how John Kerry paid an effective federal tax rate of 12.34% on $5,072,000 income in 2003. I wrote the first piece and posted it in the IUSB student newspaper, The Preface, in 2004. I also posted my piece on Bill O’Reilly.com message boards and mentioned that while the productive rich pay a massive tax rate, the very few super rich do not pay much. O’Reilly did a story on the air on this subject but never gave me credit. [I imagine that one of his staffers saw my piece and presented it as his own work.] 

Later when I started writing for the now famed IUSB Vision Web Log I wrote multiple pieces referencing this subject.  A simple Google search shows some examples.

Google “John Kerry” 12.34% and you will see multiple pieces by yours truly – LINK.

UPDATE  – Video LINK.

South Carolina’s Lt. Governor Ken Ard Endorses Newt Gingrich

CNN:

Florence, South Carolina (CNN) – South Carolina’s Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard announced Tuesday that his vote in the state’s Saturday primary will be for GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Ard is the highest office-holder in the Palmetto State to back the longtime Georgia congressman and former House speaker.

“When I vote Saturday morning it will be for Newt Gingrich.”

Nancy Pelosi: GOP knows Mitt Romney can’t win

Politico:

“If the far right thought that Romney could win, they might be more enthusiastic about him,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Mike Allen during Tuesday’s Playbook Breakfast. “But they question what he stands for and they don’t think he’s going to win. So what’s the sell? I’m not sure he knows what he stands for, and that makes it harder too.”

“I don’t know who knows him,” she added of Romney. “Does he know him?”

Video HERE.

Obama’s Chicago home gets foreclosed

Via Actual Grit:

CHICAGO, IL – President Obama’s Chicago homecoming on Wednesday was less welcoming than he expected, as Obama was shocked to learn his Hyde Park residence had been foreclosed upon some time last year.  Obama was in Chicago for a series of fundraisers and decided to visit his old home, only to discover the locks had been changed and a new family had moved in.

Since his inauguration, President Obama had neglected to make a single payment on the home he’d shared with his wife and two daughters, while the house itself fell into grave disrepair.

“The place started to become a real eyesore,” said Kevin Deckman, who owns a home on the opposite side of the street from the former Obama residence.  “The lawn was nothing but weeds, and there were a bunch of stray cats that would come and go through an open window, I think.  It was a real health hazard.

More…
Daniel Broyles, a spinal surgeon at the University of Chicago Medical Center, purchased the former Obama home at a foreclosure auction last May and was headed to his kitchen Wednesday night when he caught the president trying to jimmy open the side door with a credit card.  “He came through the door, and we both had this moment where we were looking at each other like, ‘What are you doing?’”  When Broyles explained to Obama the circumstances by which he came to own the house, the president apologized and left.

By the way, it is a spoof, but a funny one 🙂

Conservative Columnists Piling On: Romney Weak vs. Obama

American Spectator:

Since I wrote this little blog post the other day, picked up at Real Clear Politics, all of a sudden (by coincidence; I’m not claiming I had anything to do with it, but just am remarking on how rapidly the ‘meme’ has taken off) all sorts of people are suddenly realizing that Mitt Romney is hardly the candidate with the best chance to beat Barack Obama.

It certainly isn’t all at the Center for Individual Freedom, but we did have a written colloquy on the subject the other day, with Troy Senik and Ashton Ellis insightfully joining me in weighing in. Actually, Jonathan Last made the case earlier, here. Tina Korbe, a rising star, argues the same thing at Hot Air. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner makes the case that Romney’s flip-flopping is a big liability in a general election (as it was for Al Gore and to a certain extent John Kerry). Back in late December, John Hawkins at Right Wing News also argued the situation quite well. Of course, Peter Ferrara made the case right here at the Spectator, although he also segued into (strong) arguments against Romney’s ability to do a good job if he were elected anyway. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has questions.

The scholarly take on it, again doubting Romney’s electability, was by Larry Lindsey at theWeekly Standard. From the center-left, the very smart former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) thinks his (former) party doesn’t have much to worry about from Romney: “The fact, however, is that Democrats have not had to strain to plan the race they would run against Romney. For four days in the week, they will paint him as a flip-flopper who has occupied both sides of a lot of ground; for three days, as an entitled tool of corporate interests who made millions doling out pink slips on behalf of a shadowy management firm.” Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy doubtswhether we can know who is more electable.

At the New York Post, John Podhoretz writes a piece about Romney headlined “Never Has a Winner Looked so Beaten.” The column is brutal. It calls Romney “one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen.” Also: “[N]obody loves him. No one is inspired by him.… Claiming he should be president because he knows how to run a business may be the least stirring message any candidate has seized upon since Michael Dukakis foundered in 1988 by claiming he could bring ‘competence’ to the White House. And his liabilities are undeniable.

More…..

And Jonah Goldberg writes that Romney’s “authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away.”

I see, first, a candidate who “fails to inspire.” This is hugely important. It’s the old Dole/McCain/Bush 41 thing again: Without energizing one’s base, it doesn’t matter if you can get a few extra percentage points from “swing” voters (even assuming it’s true that those extra few points are achievable — which is probably not true anyway, because if you aren’t inspirational, you aren’t inspirational, period, meaning you don’t inspire the middle either). It’s also true that millions of voters really can decide to stay home; remember that Karl Rove estimated that up to 4 million expected Evangelical Bush backers stayed home in 2000

Read on HERE.

K.L. South: Romney’s behavior at Bain is a question of character, not capitalism.

K.L. South writes in the famed Furthermore Blog that the issue with Mitt Romney’s behavior at Bain is a question of character, not capitalism:

There is a huge difference between capitalism and ‘predatory capitalism’ or ‘corporate raiding’. The latter is more of a chop-shop mentality of ‘creative destruction.’ It is still a form of capitalism, sure, even if not held in high regard. That is not the issue. And, I agree most capitalism is moral… the problem is that people defend ALL OF IT equally. You cannot. But, the court of public opinion doesn’t do nuance very well.

No rational person would defend ALL matters of transportation equally; drunk driving, car hijackings, exploits of TSA agents in airports; are abusive or exploitative practices. As is a car salesman who knowingly sells you a lemon where the car will predictably break down 6 months later. Hereto, it is a free market transaction, right? It is capitalism, too.

More…

Mitt Romney has been a rank opportunist throughout his political career. Mitt Romney was a clever money-making opportunist throughout his business career. The leveraged buyout business, which does not have to be an evil business, is a business that is ripe for heartless exploitation of vulnerable companies and individuals.

More…

What about Romney benefiting from a $10 million federal bailout and pocketing $4 million dollars directly? It’s not difficult to understand why Romney is not against federal bailouts, having been the beneficiary of them. Perhaps Romney should explain to us how TARP and federal bailouts are free-market capitalism? Romney’s main accomplishment in his one term as governor was RomneyCare, which openly funded abortions for a $50 co-pay. Do Romney supporters call that capitalism too?

Bain defunded pension funds and kept the money – when companies went bankrupt, the pensions had to be paid out of ERISA – government insurance – paid for by those of us who pay taxes. A federal government insurance agency ponied up $44 million to bailout one of Bain Company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

While at Bain, and as Governor, Romney showed an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill. Romney’s Bain made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider being “corporate welfare.” It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor. Bain Capital has been a corporate welfare hog under Romney’s tenure and beyond. If one can make millions of dollars whether a company succeeds or fails then where is the risk-taking Romney speaks of so fondly?

Bain, at times, pursued a practice of socializing their losses to banks and pension insurers while privatizing their gains in the same kind of Wall Street practice that led to the mortgage crisis. They leveraged government assistance to boost profits. Is it anti-capitalist to ask if an average worker is an expendable line on a spreadsheet as that worker’s tax dollars were needed to bailout Bain and financiers? And let’s note; as a supporter of the TARP Wall Street bailout, Romney’s “creative destruction” applied only to Main Street, not Wall Street.

And this just scratches the surface folks. Read on at Furthermore

William Cohen: When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond

Fortune Magazine’s William Cohen is someone that this editor has always respected. He is all about the free market tempered with personal restraint and personal responsibility, which is one of the themes of this very web site.

Read this carefully….

William D. Cohan in the Washington Post:

Yet, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.

Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.

By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)

For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.

This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.

Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.

[This is what we call negotiating in bad faith. It is wrong and in other contexts (such as insurance for example) would be illegal – Editor]

At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.

Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.

The real Bain way may be nothing more than a clever tactic to eliminate competition from a heated auction in order to buy a business at an attractive price. After all, Bain Capital is seeking the highest returns for its investors. But Bain’s behavior also reveals something about the values it brings to bear in a process that requires honor and character to work properly. If a firm’s word is not worth the paper it is printed on, then its reputation for bad behavior will impair its ability to function in an honorable and productive way.

Mike Reagan: Gingrich Will Continue Reagan Legacy

Newsmax:

Newsmax and Ronald Reagan’s eldest son, Michael, say the 2012 presidential election is crucial to America’s future and Newt Gingrich is the candidate who will best continue the Reagan legacy.
Introducing an exclusive Newsmax interview with Gingrich, Reagan says the former House speaker “will help continue my father’s legacy.”

Gingrich is “a man who fought in Congress for my father’s programs, a man who believes that President Obama’s vision for America is a dangerous one and must be stopped and reversed.”

Recounting Gingrich’s amazing career, Reagan says that, after he was first elected to Congress in 1978, he “began to confront the usual politics and became a leading ally of my father, Ronald Reagan. He helped Congress push through massive tax cuts. He worked to secure a military buildup that helped defeat the Soviet Union. Under his leadership, Congress also limited the welfare state. As a leader in the Reagan revolution, Gingrich began to confront both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for their cozy insider deals.”

Michael Reagan also reminds viewers that House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the key conservative figure behind the Contract with America, which helped the GOP gain control of Congress in 1994 and led to the first balanced budget in decades.

And since leaving Congress, Reagan adds, Gingrich “has remained at the forefront of an American political scene” and “helped keep my father’s legacy alive.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Will Continue Reagan Legacy, Says Mike Reagan

Santorum: Romney’s Super PAC is lying about me too…

See the video HERE.

Rick Santorum:

I did vote in the United States Senate that someone who was a felon, who served their time, came out of jail, had served their parole and probation, and after all of that sentencing, then they could go out and have their voting rights renewed. Which by the way is the exact law that’s in South Carolina.

Now Governor Romney has taken that and said ‘Rick Santorum is for felons voting.’ Now that is a lie! … And so to go out and mislead the people of South Carolina as to what our record is on this is just, YUCK!

I expect that from Barak Obama. I don’t expect that from a Republican running for president. We’re better than that!

John Kass: Barack Obama wins in ’12

Conservative columnist John Kass from the Chicago Tribune gives a grim reality check to the current campaign…

John Kass:

As the Republican presidential candidates and their mouthpieces prattle on the TV from sunny South Carolina, I look up from the screen and out the window and sigh, a conservative heretic at rest, staring at all that cold Midwestern snow.

There’s a yellowed sketch tacked to the wall of my work space, a cowboy Ronald Reagan smiling in eternal optimism. And on a bookshelf is a dusty, dog-eared copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind.”

Surrounded as I am by such dry artifacts of forgotten times, I sometimes wonder why I keep them. It could be self-mockery, or something like the way an amputee decides to keep the unused boot in the closet, out of sight, but near.

And still, I can’t ditch this feeling that I might be boiled in oil for the heresy I’m about to spout:

President Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.

The reason he’ll win?

He knows who he is. And the Republican politicians don’t know who they are. They’ve forgotten what they’re about, or perhaps like some isolated tribe, they’ve lost the language necessary to explain it to themselves.

Their voters know this and don’t really believe them anymore.

And that’s why Obama will win.

And the Republican establishment that seeks to unseat him?

Their guy Mitt Romney calls himself a conservative. But he’s really a John Kerry in Republican clothing, right down to the phony laugh, and his past flips and flops will haunt him in defeat.

Shouldn’t the Romney types form their own party and call themselves the Corporatists? They’re often mistakenly called “pro-business moderates” by news organizations, but that’s not quite accurate.

For all the rhetoric about opposing regulation on business, they’re not opposed to those regulations that crush their competitors.

But do they know why their party is adrift? Can they even articulate the problem? I doubt it.

What’s bothersome is that I disagree with almost every single Obama policy, often vehemently, because what he’s doing amounts to feeding handfuls of steroids to the federal leviathan gorging on our individual rights and freedoms.

But being anti-Obama isn’t enough to vote him out. Republican voters have to believe, and I don’t think they do. They see the game unfolding. And they don’t want to be suckers again.

 

Another reason not to believe tonight…  Huntsman endorses Romney after trashing him for months….